One Northwest Ohio woman is fighting back with her most powerful weapon — a parent’s love.

Mary Juarez of Archbold lost her 31-year-old son Marjoe Gineman to drug and alcohol addiction in 2010, and has become — as her website indicates — “a mother on a mission.”

She quit her job to help others with the same problem.

“Drugs,” Mary said, “offer the hardest battle we have to fight.”

Marjoe lived far from any major urban setting or gang culture. He had a love of God, enjoyed sports, was artistic and liked to joke around.

Mary raised her son in this rural Fulton County town (pop. 4,300) in a faith-filled home surrounded by loving, extended family.

“My mother passed away in Marjoe’s freshman year,” she said. “I do believe for a 14-year-old young man, going through adolescence and a whole new realm of life — learning to deal with grief — he ended up in the wrong place at the wrong time. Instead of walking away, he gave into the temptation of a few beers.”

It led to more drinking, which was a gateway to marijuana. He turned to heroin, which then evolved into prescription pills.

“I didn’t know him,” Mary said, “and he didn’t even know himself.”

Marjoe’s 15-year addiction landed him in two rehabilitation centers, but by 2009 he seemed to be conquering his problem and finding peace, courage and new hope.

“He was so strong then and said, ‘If I can make it through rehab, anyone can make it through rehab,’” Mary said. It only took a small relapse where Mary believes “for one second he let go of God’s hand and the courage to say no,” and Marjoe was gone.

Not long after, her sorrow grew into a passion for helping others with Never Let Go Ministries, a nonprofit aimed at creating drug-free communities through education and awareness.

Mary and her husband, Victor Juarez, have spoken to more than 60 schools, youth groups and rehab centers throughout Northwest Ohio and appear at various events, such as the recent EXCLAIM! Christian music festival in Toledo. Their website — neverletgo ministries.com — explores their motto, “Never let go of God’s hand, and never let go of the courage to say no.”

“The main thing is she (Mary) doesn’t want Marjoe’s life to be a waste of a life,” Victor said. “She wanted his death to have a purpose. If it wasn’t for him losing his life, we wouldn’t be doing this. She does this because Marjoe lives on through this. She wants something to become good through his death.”

Having recently obtained 501(c)(3) status, the Juarezes have big plans for Never Let Go Ministries as they hope to obtain an office, earn grants and create a center where others can get counseling. Fighting the battle in Northwest Ohio must be a group effort, said Victor, because the location poses problems.

“You have the turnpike which crosses the top of Northwest Ohio,” Victor said. “You have Michigan, Detroit, Canada, Fort Wayne — it’s just surrounded by different areas and highways where dealers can come in and sell their product. It’s just so hard for law enforcement to keep it down, and they’re trying very hard.”

While the couple will do what they can to help, they realize addiction is often the result of bad choices.

“I can’t say I ever met an addict who wanted to be an addict,” Mary said. “They tell me it is the most hopeless, sickest journey anyone has ever walked, but once they cross that line there is no going back. These are absolutely beautiful people, but they made some wrong choices.”

Epidemic proportions

When former first lady Nancy Reagan introduced the famous “Just Say No” anti-drug campaign in the 1980s, it wasn’t as though the war on drugs had just begun. That battle was originated, at least formally, 100 years ago in 1914 by the U.S. government.

The campaign was, however, a very public and concentrated group effort among national and world leaders, educators, law enforcement and drug abuse programs to stop what was becoming a growing problem.

Right here in Toledo that same concept is being applied to a drug problem that’s not just grown, but has reached epidemic status throughout Northwest Ohio and all of America: heroin and opioid abuse.

“This is now the No. 1 cause of accidental death in America,” said Dr. Robert Forney, Lucas County chief toxicologist. “And it’s growing at an exponential [rate]. There is no plateau yet.”

If that statement doesn’t cause alarm, a quick look at local statistics should. The Lucas County Coroner’s Office confirmed the following heroin deaths in recent years: 2010, 8; 2011, 15; 2012, 31; 2013, 80; 2014, 60 in the first five months, with 100-150 possible by the end of the year.

“I think the thing that needs to be remembered is that some of these people were put on medications, and for one reason or another became addicted,” said Dr. James Patrick, Lucas County coroner. “The public and others have come to the understanding that one should not have to endure chronic pain. The problem with that is — and I don’t disagree — many of the drugs that are used to alleviate pain are significantly addictive. Then the problem is, if the source of pain is no longer there or is fixed, the question becomes then how to wean somebody off these drugs if they’re addictive.

“They are using heroin as a substitute for prescription drugs that they’re no longer able to obtain in the quantities that they need them.”

Another surprise to many is that this epidemic affects various social groups, and is not necessarily confined to an urban setting, as many often expect. Forney indicated that of the 60 heroin deaths so far this year, 76.3 percent were men and 82.8 percent were white/Caucasian. The age range is 19-66, with the average at 39.9.

“This is really in the suburbs,” Forney said. “I don’t mean it’s not in the inner city, but these aren’t people meeting street people in the inner city, and part of that whole gang/drug sort of culture.”

He said addiction can affect anyone, using Rush Limbaugh’s battle with prescription painkillers in 2003 as an example.

“If you look at the statistics of people that are dying of overdoses, they are typically individuals ranging from mid-30s to mid-50s, typically Caucasian,” said Scott Sylak of the Mental Health and Recovery Services Board of Lucas County (MHRSB). “ZIP codes are primarily not in the central city district.”

The current epidemic can be traced back several years, Forney said. In 2001, the Joint Commission — an independent organization that accredits and certifies over 20,000 health care organizations and programs — named pain a fifth vital sign (the others being the more scientifically measurable temperature, blood pressure, pulse and respiratory rate).

With pain as vital sign, the physician must now pay attention to it and treat it, according to Forney, and that’s where opioids come in. Opioids’ narcotic effect causes a dullness and soothing emotion, and synthetic opiates are often used to treat bodily pain.

In the wake of the Joint Commission’s revised standard, the sale of opioids began to increase as more and more prescriptions were written for outpatients. But while there is a real attempt to treat pain with narcotics on a chronic, long-term basis, as the body adjusts to these drugs it needs higher doses to be effective.

“These are all combination deaths,” Forney said. “It’s very [different from] what we typically see in a suicide, where people take a handful of pills. That’s not the way these look. With narcotics, the more you take the more your body accommodates itself to it. It’s a little bit like the tolerance to alcohol, although the actual methods of tolerance are different.”

“One of the problems with opioid drugs is not only are they addicting, it takes more of them to do their thing,” Patrick said. “The idea is that there is clearly a factor of tolerance with the opioid drugs. You are apt to require more to alleviate pain.”

There was a time when patients with expired prescriptions could drive to an urgent care facility in another city to get more medicine, but now a statewide monitoring system prevents that overuse. But the fact remains that when someone is hurting, they want drugs to alleviate the pain.

When a prescription supply is cut off, many seek alternate sources for the medication they’ve become dependent on. Instead of obtaining the drugs they really need, they may turn in desperation to heroin, which can be inexpensive compared to drugs like Vicodin.

The conundrum begs more questions, for which it’s difficult to find solid answers.

“I’m not a social scientist, but I’ve heard others, especially in the media, comment on the ‘greatest generation,’” Forney said. “They were tough people and were willing to suffer a lot without calling in sick or needing much in the way of pain relief. If you go to the next generation — baby boomers or generation X — are we crybabies? These [cases] are mostly men. Why aren’t there more women? Why aren’t there more minorities?”

Doctors are somewhat caught in the middle. If they don’t alleviate patients’ pain, they can be criticized. If they believe what patients tell them and prescribe opioids, they’re in a sense part of the larger problem. Pain, it could be argued, is a subjective symptom, not an objective sign.

At MHRSB, officials work to help those with addictions.

“Our role is mainly to look at those folks in need of treatment, and how to get them the best possible treatment in our community,” Sylak said. “We’ve been working on a process to refer people to us. I think in general, [to curb] the heroin and opioid epidemic, it will take multiple efforts of different groups working together.”

By law, MHRSB doesn’t provide direct services, but rather contracts with five different centers in the area to offer that help: Harbor, Zepf Center/COMPASS, Unison, New Concepts and Rescue Mental Health Services.

Sylak notes that MHRSB is working with each to ensure there’s adequate capacity to serve future clients as projected by the trends. Their most recently passed levy in November 2012 is certainly helping them in their quest, Sylak said.

Fighting the war

Until recently, law enforcement dealt with heroin overdose cases in a “callous” manner, Lucas County Sheriff John Tharp said during a July 25 interview.

Tharp recalled a case he handled with Toledo Mayor D. Michael Collins when both men were police officers. They were called to a home, he said, and found three people who had overdosed on heroin.

The protocol: Find out their names, create a file and be done with it.

Tharp may have revolutionized the procedure for handling heroin cases by recently creating the Addiction Resource Unit (ARU), comprised of law enforcement officers and agencies from across the county. They will visit hospitals, talk to family members and investigate the scene all with the intent of getting the victim treatment and arresting the drug supplier.

The ARU involves a staggering level of cooperation among agencies: police and fire departments around the county, dozens of rehabilitation services, the metro drug unit, the county prosecutor’s office and the county coroner.

“This is not a program, not a philosophy,” Tharp said. “This is a new way of doing business.”

It’s a collaborative effort with the goal of keeping people alive, he said.

Dispatchers are often unaware that emergency calls are actually heroin overdoses because family members cover up for their loved ones. They don’t want police to know that their son or daughter or aunt or father is using.

Law enforcement knows what to do when there’s a shooting or stabbing, but they didn’t know what to do when dispatched to a hospital for an overdose. They did know that the person being treated might not be able to speak, not only because of medical treatment, but because they might not want to talk to law enforcement, Tharp said.

That’s where Matt Rizzo, interim executive director of A Renewed Mind, steps in. Rizzo developed a training module for deputies to use on the streets.

The SOS method involves “supporting” families and listening to their struggles that have led to a loved one using heroin or opioids, including information on what may lead to an arrest; “offer” resources that are available to help the victim into treatment; and “secure” the environment for recovery, such as removing any prescription drugs from the home.

With 20 years in the mental health and addiction field, Rizzo used his experiences in social work and therapy to develop the SOS training model. A DVD is currently being created so law enforcement can train themselves. Counselors are also riding along with deputies to provide additional support.

The training aids the deputies in their dealings with family members at the home or hospital. They now can help families find treatment and discuss insurance options for their loved one. Deputies also hand out educational prevention kits that contain information and resources on addiction.

“We’ll continue working with the family,” Tharp said. “If there’s a relapse, we’ll still be there for them.

“We’re not going to walk away. When that person hits bottom, that deputy could be the spark to get them into counseling and start a new life for themselves.”

Lucas County Prosecutor Julia Bates is on board with Tharp’s new way of doing business. Bates plans to hand down manslaughter or homicide charges to suppliers if the evidence supports it.

Now, deputies will investigate overdoses that result in death as homicide cases. They will gather evidence, including syringes and fingerprints, to track down suppliers.

Bates said she will take each case on an individual basis.

“We don’t want to make criminals out of the overdose subjects,” Bates said. “So we’re going to have to feel our way with this, but maybe we can help these people get off of drugs. If the victim does die, we’ll look at it as a homicide; we’ll look at the scene and see what we can find out — who did they get the drugs from, who gave it to them?

“We’ll look at what kind of evidence is found. If we find the dealer, we can prosecute the dealer.”

National trend

According to a July report by USA Today, there’s a national trend to prosecute overdoses that result in death as homicides.

In Michigan, it has been reported that the homicide charge has been used against 75 people from 2010 to 2013.

The deputies in ARU currently have more than 60 cases they’re working on, including two deaths. Tharp said two to three people overdose per week, just in Toledo.

Tharp did not receive any startup money for the unit, nor did he want to wait for grants. With the county commissioners’ OK, he pulled in deputies from other departments and paid overtime.

“The county commissioners have been very aggressive to encourage a change in the way of doing business,” Tharp said. “This could not wait for grants. This service needed to be done immediately.”

The Addiction Resource Unit is housed Downtown at the Lucas County Sheriff’s Office. Tharp said they are currently in the process of knocking down two walls in an office area to create one large squad room where deputies can work together. “United we’re strong,” he said.

Johnson said he has been inundated with emails from the public seeking assistance and information since the unit was formed a few weeks ago. Johnson, who has worked for the Lucas County Sheriff’s Department since 2002 and has 19 years in law enforcement, called his new position the most demanding yet fulfilling job he’s ever had.

“I will work 20 hours a day doing this job and get paid for eight because I’m helping someone out,” Johnson said.

The unit’s work is “very, very important,” Tharp said, because young people are destroying their lives and their families every day.

“All resources have to pull together to curb this heroin epidemic — all law enforcement agencies in the county, all fire departments in the county, all rehabilitation agencies in the county and in the community,” Tharp said. “We all have to pull together.

Berry: Cold weather and hot air

As long as I’ve been in Northwest Ohio, I’ve heard longtime residents reminisce about the winters of their youth, with a sort of meteorological “They don’t make them like they used to” wistfulness. Now these good folks wonder why on earth they would reminisce about such things.

January was a month for the books. Toledo received more snow than in an entire normal winter. The mean temperature was mean indeed, 9.5 degrees below the monthly norm; record low temperatures were tied or broken on four days (plus one more already this month), and the high temperature was a gelid 1 above zero on the 7th. Thousands of low temperature records were set nationwide. Even Floridians had to break out the parkas for temperatures in the upper 20s, making northerners who fled crisp, refreshing chill and sparkling snowscapes wonder why they bothered.

So what’s to blame for this rampant frigidity? Warmer temperatures.

That is what we are being told to think. “Global warming,” which I always place in the quotation marks of irony, is why it has been so blasted cold.

But the phrase “global warming” is now as passé as “war on terror.” Even the most avid “global warmers” admit in the face of contrary data that “global warming” is neither global nor warming. Now, the correct phrase for a changing climate is “climate change.”

I cannot imagine a more blatant redundancy. Changing climate is part of the planet’s natural processes; it changes because it changes. Yet now these natural processes are being blamed on human carbon emissions which the “global warmers” seek to regulate in order to enhance their power and and profits.

(Witness Al Gore, a meteorological huckster, becoming a multimillionaire by duping the gullible and easily panicked into his “global warming” sideshow, a carnival of freaks and frauds that include utterly incorrect forecasts that hurricanes after Katrina would be more severe; a doctored image of a hurricane spinning backwards on the cover of his 2009 book, “Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis;” and lying last year about there being a “Category 6” for his imagined megastorms.)

The “global warmers” rightly point out that this winter’s severe weather was caused by the position of the jet stream, one of several narrow, high-elevation wind currents, as it forces wave after wave of arctic air from the polar vortex upon us. But they also claim that this circumstance is due to warmer air elsewhere.

Such a claim in rubbish. The jet stream’s position fluctuates precisely because it is not static. It is not a railroad track spiked into the sky; it is wind, and its path moves north and south in curves and tangents in response to natural effects and forces.

As for the polar vortex, some conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh call it an invention of the liberal media. That’s as flawed as Gore’s backwards hurricane. First identified in 1853, polar vortexes are cyclonic storms at or near the poles that last for weeks; they are strongest in each hemisphere’s winter, and their movement north or south can have powerful impacts on the severity of winter weather, as happened this year. We were unaware of them because they stayed out of our hair until now.

An honest look at actual data exposes the foolishness of blaming human carbon emissions for our tough winter. The National Weather Service’s Cleveland office maintains a Web page chronicling the daily normals and records for the half-dozen reporting stations in its jurisdiction. Recordkeeping started for Toledo in the 1870s, and dozens of those records still date to the late 1800s; on those days, it has not been warmer or cooler since then. Were we emitting as much carbon then as now? Scarcely. Yet, according to the “global warmers’” “logic,” all these old records should have been smashed by more recent carbon emission-influenced extremes. But many records clearly predating carbon emissions remain.

The efforts of these phonies leads us to, who else, President Obama. He made a speech in Fresno, Calif., to promise aid to drought-stricken farmers – never mind that much of their hardship was caused by federal courts denying them water, sacrificing their crops to save fish – and to blame the drought on climate change.

Why didn’t he make a similar speech someplace that was impacted by cold and snow? Because drought sells “global warming” to the ignorant better than does winter weather. As if to point out his climate change error, it finally began to rain in much of California in the days preceding the speech. But, hey, he promised in his 2008 victory speech to lower the tides, so I guess he can end droughts.

This entry was posted
on Thursday, February 20th, 2014 at 10:44 pm and is filed under Opinion.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

CHILDREN OF LIBERTY

Berry: Rush Limbaugh, Pope Francis and drive-by journalism

On Nov. 24, Pope Francis released his first Apostolic Exhortation. Titled “Evangelii Gaudium,” or “Joy of the Gospel,” it is essentially a call for Christian revival predicated on overcoming what distracts us from the call of our faith to proclaim the Gospel.

One of the central distractions he cites is pervasive consumerism resulting in “the desolation and anguish born of a complacent yet covetous heart, the feverish pursuit of frivolous pleasures, and a blunted conscience.” He warns that this way of living shuts others, especially the poor, out of our lives, and that it deafens us to the voice of God, stifles His joy, drains from us the desire to do good and spawns resentment, anger and listlessness.

In expanding on this, he sets off a bombshell in Paragraph 54:

“In this context, some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system.”

For days after the publication of this document, Rush Limbaugh, he of the “talent on loan from God,” condemned this. Or, more accurately, he condemned what he thought was meant by it. An ardent and highly successful capitalist, he railed against how, according to the news stories he cited, the Pope was criticizing unfettered capitalism. He even went so far as to claim on Nov. 27 that what was expressed in Paragraph 54 is “pure Marxism.”

That is stunning. What occurred here is that the news media took the Pope’s words out of context and published an erroneous interpretation of them. Limbaugh, instead of starting with the Exhortation itself, began his attack by seizing on what he found agreeable in what the news media claimed was said, and then cherry-picked snippets from the Exhortation as supporting evidence.

In short, Limbaugh committed an act of what he calls “drive-by journalism,” in which those charged with reporting and discussing the news shirk their duties of diligence and honesty to impose their own spin. As familiar as Limbaugh is with being taken out of context with injurious intent, it is shocking that he so readily engaged in such practice with Pope Francis.

So what did the Pope really say?: “In this context …” What context? He establishes that in the three preceding paragraphs’ discussion of the millions of poor, sick, fearful, desperate and hungry people whom the rest of us, wealthy or not, exclude, neglect and regard as goods to be consumed. Rather than condemning capitalism on its face, the Holy Father condemns, and very rightly so, any economic system that exalts money and prosperity over human dignity. In his own phrases, he damns the “idolatry of money” in which a “financial system rules rather than serves.”

Read again Paragraph 54: He criticizes the notion that “trickle-down” economics automatically result in “greater justice and inclusiveness.” He is absolutely right: People, especially the powerful and rich, are not inherently good, and wealth created in a moral vacuum will not necessarily benefit others. Pope Francis calls out the wealthy for profiting from the hardship of others, giving the example of eliminating jobs solely to increase profits, and names the wrong inherent in gathering riches to oneself while letting others suffer.

What the Pope is calling for, in part under the emotionally charged term of “distribution of income,” is scarcely the Marxist model of forced redistribution of wealth by the government, but rather for the wealthy to exercise moral responsibility in providing for the less fortunate. Indeed: He condemns the “welfare mentality,” and Limbaugh’s calling his ideas Marxism is all the more laughable given Karl Marx’s hatred of the very institution and faith the Pope leads.

But Limbaugh wasn’t done. When Time named Pope Francis its Person of the Year for 2013, Limbaugh immediately claimed that it was a reward for the alleged attack on capitalism. Once again, he ignored the facts.

Pope Francis was chosen for this honor not because of his stance on economics – although it was cited – but because of the context in which he holds it, one of profound compassion for the needy. He is not the Person of the Year for being politically correct, but rather because he lives out what he and the church teach. Ironically, he was also chosen for this honor because of his deep humility, an irony made even more cutting by his most prominent critic’s own reputation for arrogance, bombast and bluster.

Treece: Drilling in dry wells

Readers who frequent this column will recall my long-held dictum that everything cycles. Be the subject investments, economics, politics or otherwise, everything in this world has a tide that ebbs and flows, albeit on different schedules.

Nevertheless, it remains of utmost importance that in any of these areas, when the flow of tides change directions, we must adjust in turn. Doing so is far more profitable – and eventually far easier – than attempting to swim upstream.

Today there exist surprising crowds of people who have made names for themselves acting solely as antagonists, people who have little or nothing to say if they aren’t provided someone or something to rally against. Of these, Glenn Beck stands out as among the most vocal and probably the most recognizable.

And just what has made Glenn Beck famous? Rallying against unsound monetary policy, speaking out against progressive welfare programs, lambasting unaccountable government czars and, most noticeably, revealing in minute detail the background of a president unqualified for election and – in all likelihood – presently serving his last weeks with any real authority.

Do any of these arguments add value in any way? Do they put forth any reasonable alternative or call for real change? More importantly, do any of them matter if Obama loses re-election and the U.S. federal government tightens its fiscal purse strings?

A recent quote said of this election that “if Barack Obama were running unopposed, he’d have nothing to run on.” In other words, with a president devoid of any meaningful progress or accomplishment after three years in office, any re-election campaign waged by Obama is built solely on bashing Republican candidate Mitt Romney.

Quite often we see the same thing in business. Instances abound where businessmen, spokesmen or pundits survive only because they have someone to struggle against. Theirs is not a constructive struggle; they are simply saying what people want to hear, following the path of least resistance.

A quick story: Around the time George W. Bush was coming into the White House, a caller into Rush Limbaugh’s radio show asked the conservative host what he was going to do now that he wouldn’t have Bill Clinton to speak out against. Rush responded that there would always be issues and events to discuss, and as time went on his subjects changed from those he had discussed during the Clinton years.

The point here is that the United States is presently undergoing a major shift, just as it was around the new millennium. In fact, this instance is likely much larger and further-reaching than was seen a decade ago. The U.S. is now in the midst of major shifts in the sphere of politics, finance, manufacturing and production, employment, military, entitlement spending and the list goes on.

The question now is which of those pundits who have spent the past several years building names for themselves can make the necessary shift from being critical to constructive in their commentary.

Far harder is it to avoid the flavor of the week, but instead to change with the times as required – regardless of popularity – when time calls for such a shift. After all, the one-trick pony can be amusing for a time, but when it ceases to serve a purpose it’s the first one sent to the glue factory.

Dock David Treece is a partner with Treece Investment Advisory Corp (www.TreeceInvestments.com) and is licensed with FINRA through Treece Financial Services Corp. He provides expert content to numerous media outlets. The above information is the express opinion of Dock David Treece and should not be construed as investment advice or used without outside verification.

How are local media covering Obama vs. Romney?

I was raised to believe that anyone could be president of the United States. Certainly in my lifetime, the ascendencies of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush seemed to bolster that theory.

But with the news that President Barack Obama is nearing $1 billion in campaign funds, with challenger Mitt Romney not far behind, I wonder how true that once-bedrock American belief is. Would either of my two sons ever be in a position to access $1 billion? By the time they will be old enough to run, 30 years from now, $1 billion will seem like a quaint little figure.

Would I ever want either of my sons to be president? To experience the rancor, the lies and the open hatred many of our politicians endure?

Would I want to open a newspaper every day and see attacks, lies and attempts to destroy their characters and neutralize any chance they had at effectiveness?

As the election nears, media bias is an ongoing and legitimate concern. As a working journalist, I pay close attention to how local media cover politics. The inexorable acrimony that divides so many Americans has become an accepted element of the discussion; that is clearly seen in the rise of such media outlets as FOX News and MSNBC. More people seem to gravitate to news sources that present the side they believe in, thus depriving themselves of opposing viewpoints and messages.

How does this division and side-taking translate to local media? To investigate, Toledo Free Press commissioned researcher Mary McCartney to study the LexisNexis database and local media websites (The Blade, Toledo Free Press, 13abc, WTOL/FOX and WNWO NBC) to determine whether our hometown media have taken sides in Obama vs. Romney.

Our research studied the period from June 1, 2012 — the week Romney sewed up the GOP nomination with a Texas primary win — through Oct. 3, 2012, just after the first presidential debate. The focus was on which candidate dominated the reporting of each published or broadcast story — which candidate was discussed in more depth, with more words — than his opponent. Each story was determined to fall into one of three categories: Balanced, Obama or Romney. We focused on campaign-specific stories, discounting news coverage of Obama’s presidency if the story did not invoke the campaign. We included opinion columns and analysis pieces alongside news stories, under the belief that total presentation of each candidate was important.

We did not attempt to characterize the tenor of the coverage; judging slant, positive or negative, takes the conversation down a subjective road, far from any empirical analysis. Our study guides you through each media outlet’s volume of coverage. It is up to you to determine if that coverage is fair to your chosen candidate.

Television stations

The broadcast media were firmly entrenched in balanced reporting. All three stations relied on Associated Press reports for website pieces of any depth (as defined by word count); local reporting was limited to local candidate visits.

WNWO NBC presented 34 Balanced stories, 34 Obama stories and 34 Romney stories, a perfect balance for a total of 102 stories. A check of the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) database shows WNWO President/CEO Chris Topf has donated to the National Associaiton of Broadcasters Political Action Committee (PAC), but not to any specific candidate.

WTOL/FOX Toledo included 11 Balanced stories, 17 Obama stories and 24 Romney stories, leaning GOP in its total of 52 stories. An FEC check shows WTOL General Manager Bob Chirdon has donated to the Liberty Corporation Federal PAC, but not to any specific candidate.

WTVG 13abc offered 8 Balanced stories, 11 Obama stories and 8 Romney stories, leaning slightly Democratic in its total of 27 stories. FEC records do not show that WTVG General Manager John Christianson has donated to any specific candidate.

Although Toledo Free Press is certainly more conservative-leaning than The Blade, I was surprised to see the results of our study. Toledo Free Press presented 4 Balanced stories, 5 Obama stories and 12 Romney stories for a total of 21 articles. I was surprised because, working with Toledo Free Press Managing Editor Sarah Ottney and News Editor Brigitta Burks, we have striven to cover Obama and Romney appearances equally. Looking at the details, the source of the disparity is clear. Opinion pieces by conservative writers Tim Higgins, Thomas Berry, Gary Rathbun and Dock David Treece tip our content way in Romney’s favor. I do not apologize for any of our writers’ opinions, but it does help to be aware of the specifics in the gap in our opinion content.

Given Blade Publisher and Editor-in-Chief John Block’s open endorsement of Obama (remember the 2008 Page One Blade photo of Block giddily reaching to embrace then-candidate Obama?), his 2008 donation to Obama for America and his attendance as one of very few guest list media people at the March 14, 2012 State Dinner for U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron, combined with his newspaper’s stalwart liberal philosophy, it would not be surprising to see Obama dominate The Blade’s campaign coverage. And the numbers do show a disparity.

During our study, The Blade reported 56 Balanced stories, 86 Obama stories and 62 Romney stories for a total of 204 articles. The total contains some interesting trends by reporters, presumably covering specific beats. Blade reporter Jim Provance has been credited for 8 Balanced stories, 28 Obama stories and 9 Romney stories; reporter Tom Troy has a byline count of 22 Balanced stories, 25 Obama stories and 36 Romney stories. All other Blade writers had numbers relatively evenly divided between the two candidates.

FEC records do not show any candidate donations by John Block during this election cycle. Block Communications Chairman Allan Block has donated to Romney for President Inc. and the National Republican Congressional Committee. He is also a contributor to Republicans Sen. Rob Portman, Rep. Bob Latta and U.S. Senate candidate Josh Mandel, and Democrat Rep. Marcy Kaptur.

WSPD 1370 AM

In tracking WSPD (disclosure: I host a pop culture radio show for WSPD, for no compensation), which features a conservative lineup led by Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and local hosts Brian Wilson and Fred LeFebvre, an interesting trend emerges. Obviously, the station mentions Obama and Romney with a frequency too great to count during the course of four months. FEC records do not list any donations from General Manager Andy Stuart. But WSPD is the only local news source that consistently covers Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson. Johnson has been a guest on the station’s local shows and his platform has been regularly discussed in-depth on its airwaves.

To contrast, Toledo Free Press has mentioned Johnson once during the study period. Another review of The Blade for the four-plus months examined showed only three mentions of the Libertarian candidate. Two of those mentions were in passing; one article reported on the visit to Toledo by his vice presidential candidate, Jim Gray, and the main theme of the story was the candidate’s position on same-sex marriage. A study of local television websites shows a number of Associated Press articles.

Summation

Across all media reporting in Toledo, it appears the press tends to slightly lean in favor of the president, with an attempt at balanced reporting across all the organizations. There were 406 stories total: 113 Balanced, 153 Obama and 140 Romney. So while national media may clearly be divided by bias, at least locally, in this study, we can be pleased to have a relatively balanced media.

Unless you’re a Gary Johnson fan.

Michael S. Miller is editor in chief of Toledo Free Press and Toledo Free Press Star. Email him at mmiller@toledofreepress.com.

McGInnis: Other hidden political messages

In these times of strife and uncertainty, we are often told it is becoming more and more important for people to hold onto and defend their core personal values. Because, after all, nothing signals a mature mind more than fear of change.

One of the most common boogeymen for those who stand in defense of “tradition” is the media. They find threats to their way of life in most every corner of pop culture. And not just the ones with overt messages, like how some movies instill a desire to be kind toward people who are different from you.

No, many corners of pop culture have messages that are far more insidious than that — messages buried so deep that not only is it possible the creators never intended them, but they are so obtuse that only the truly dedicated (and possibly insane) could ever find them.

Rush Limbaugh, for example, recently made headlines (well, okay, made a few snarky posts on Twitter) by claiming there was clearly a connection between the name of Batman villain Bane and the now-infamous Bain corporation formerly headed by Mitt Romney. Now, superficially, this might seem like a ridiculous claim for a commentator to make, even on some conspiracy-obsessed blog — let alone saying it to a national audience.

But that’s just what the Vast Political Conspiracy™ wants you to think. In fact, upon closer inspection, I have discovered that this summer’s slate of movies is just full — full, I tells ya — of such hidden messages. And the truth must be told!

Take the wildly popular superhero epic “The Avengers.” It has a villain named Loki — a god. Now, are we really supposed to believe that in an era where atheism is rising to near epidemic levels in our youth, it was sheer coincidence that a major blockbuster cast a GOD as its lead bad guy? This is clearly designed to push young people further away from religion!

Not only that, but one of the most popular heroes of the “Avengers” group is the Hulk. A big, green out-of-control mammoth who runs wild throughout the city. It doesn’t take any imagination to see the metaphor here — he clearly represents the Green Party, running roughshod throughout the election and distracting from the real issues faced by heroes like Captain America and that proud capitalist icon, Iron Man!

Then there’s this “Magic Mike,” a movie about male strippers. Trying to corrupt audiences with a view of Channing Tatum’s taut, perfect abs is disgusting enough, but then you find there’s a character named “Big D*** Richie.” I mean, come on, people, do I have to draw you a diagram? This name is obviously biased against our nation’s wealthy! I mean, “Richie” — clearly meant to signify the rich — and he’s a “Big D***?” It’s RIGHT THERE, people! And you can’t tell me that the name is just a coincidence, they knew when they started production that the Occupy Wall Street movement would be engendering discontent toward America’s job creators. How did they know? They JUST KNEW.

It’s not just the movies aimed at adults that are afflicted by such travesties. Political agendas are inexorably woven throughout films aimed at our youth, as well. And I’m not just talking about the obvious, like how something like “Ice Age” is so clearly a slap in the face of creationism.

No, there are far more insidious messages. Like in “Brave.” The lead heroine/troublemaker is named “Merida.” If you squint and tilt your head a little bit, it reads eerily similar to “Miranda,” the rights read by police officers to suspects. Are we really supposed to take it as sheer coincidence that such a plainly rebellious figure was named in this way? She’s designed to encourage young viewers to disrespect police authority! It’s so clear!

And this “Madagascar” series. Oh, sure, it seems harmless enough. Buncha cute zoo animals. Aww. How sweet. But look at that title. Just LOOK at it. “Madagascar.” If you add just one letter and separate that into words, it becomes “Mad At Gas Car.” This is plainly — PLAINLY — propaganda against the internal combustion engine, designed to push the next generation away from oil and toward hybrids!

Oh sure, “paranoid,” you say. “Grasping at straws,” you say. “Making connections that were never, ever intended so I can rile up my audience,” you say. I know it’s real. And I won’t stop yelling about it just because little factors like “reality” or “common sense” get in my way. Now, off to see “Total Recall,” which I’m sure — sure — has something to do with Ralph Nader.

Burnard: Limbaugh finally crosses line

Rush Limbaugh may have finally crossed a bridge too far, which I was beginning to think was not possible in the current GOP/Tea Party funfest. The GOP has been pushing more and more absurd social engineering policy instead of trying to address the economic problems that they created in the last administration under W, and have fought tooth and nail to keep the present administration from being able to even moderately attempt to address for fear that Obama may be reelected. Leading the absurdity as spokesman for old curmudgeonly white men everywhere, Limbaugh has been virtually unchallenged in his whacko world of lies and conspiracies until now.

It’s true that the hardcore Dittoheads are relatively unfazed by his comments, but the sponsors of the drivel that has flowed virtually unchecked from his mouth for decades have finally been awakened to the fact that his shrinking base is very much in the minority, and his antics could actually start to affect their bottom line. He’s led a golden life up until now that, if he had been a liberal commentator, would have drawn unending scorn of the conservative hypocrites that, in the name of “freedom,” feel obliged to tell everyone else except themselves how to live their lives. They would have pushed to have his large drug addled derriere locked up for life. The family values crowd would have been outraged at the number of wives he’d had. But we’re talking Rush here, and the same rules they would like everyone else to live by don’t apply to conservatives themselves. You need look no further than the fact that Newt Gingrich is still, although barely, in the race for the GOP nomination. It always reminds me of one of those old things my parents used to say when they couldn’t come up with a logical answer on short notice: “Don’t do as I do, do as I say.” As usual readers of my column will note, I’ve been a convert to the wisdom of old sayings as I age, but this one has always baffled me, and is one that I made sure not to use on my own children. In wisdom, it ranks right up there (or down there) with “Because I said so.” I’m not entirely sure I may not have used that one, but I am sure that it was more likely out of exasperation than a true belief in the wisdom of it.

Super Tuesday has come and gone, and for the life of me, I must have missed the “super” part. Everything seems to be just as it was before as far as determining who the GOP nominee will be. Once again, Romney failed to get any kind of meaningful victory, and so the universe’s longest slog toward obscurity continues. Even though I still believe that the powers that be will ensure that Romney will be the eventual nominee, no one else seems to be giving any quarter. Even poor old Ron Paul is hanging in there. Romney reminds me of the Stepford candidate, who will say anything he thinks his present audience will want to hear. This can and has been wincingly painful on a number of occasions. His southern strategy this week was a perfect example. Seeing Mitt say “Hey y’all” and talk about his supposed breakfast of cheesy grits was especially cringe-inducing to me. At this stage of the campaign, I doubt if anyone, including Mitt, knows who the real Mitt Romney is. His answer about what Rush had to say about Ms. Fluke was especially weak: “Those weren’t the words I’d have chosen.” I don’t think that probably won him a large number of the women’s vote. Besides, you have to question the decision-making skills of anyone who would strap their dog to the roof of the car for a 450 mile vacation trip to Canada.

Rick Santorum, meanwhile, is jockeying for the Great American Theocracy vote. He has completely subverted the will of the Founding Fathers by ignoring the separation of church and state doctrine that was a bedrock issue by the framers of the Constitution. He’s badmouthed JFK and says that people who believe they should send their kids to college are snobs. He’s been somewhat successful being the anti-Romney, but I don’t think he’s going to seal the deal with a majority of the voters as the best choice to lead our country back to prosperity. Gingrich did a better job than Romney in carrying his home state, but if anyone believes the president of the United States can lower gas prices to $2.50/gallon, well then I have some moon acreage I’d like to sell you. I hardly think a sufficient portion of the masses are going to believe that. Ron, so long, it’s been good to know you. And so it drags on until November.

Baumhower: Boycott blueprint

Oops, he did it again … last week, Rush Limbaugh created a media firestorm by referring to Sandra Fluke, a woman who testified in front of Congress about insurance companies and birth control mandates, as a “slut” and “prostitute.” Limbaugh then double-downed the following day when he suggested Fluke make a sex tape, “if taxpayers are going to pay for her birth control.”

Limbaugh has apologized but a reported 35 businesses have pulled their advertisements/money and two radio stations have dropped his show. In my career, I have been involved with a couple of these boycotts, so I have learned how they happen and where they go wrong. So I wanted to offer you the “boycott blueprint” for any media comments that offend you in the future.

1. Just cause: The most important thing in executing a boycott is the reason for the boycott. What has been said that has motivated you to leap into action? Who did it offend/hurt and why was it said? Limbaugh’s recent comments are the perfect just cause.

2. Organize: Once you have the reason, it’s time to find others who are equally offended by the host’s statements. To find offended parties one may want to use Facebook or Twitter. Once your initial group is formed, it’s time to talk to bigger groups who would be offended — churches, political parties, unions, etc. Professional tip: The larger the group, the faster and easier the boycott will be. Getting multiple groups will increase the speed of this process.

3. Contact the station: You are organized and motivated; now it’s time to convey your anger toward the persons in charge at the radio/TV station. When asking for a meeting, make sure that all station higher-ups are in attendance. The No. 1 solution immediately and almost always offered is an on-air apology. In certain cases, management may agree with your just cause and suspend the host(s) for the comments. If the local management fails to meet your needs, contact the corporate offices, ask for titles like regional vice presidents, program directors, etc. Professional tip: Apologies and suspensions often boost ratings for the show and the station. If all you wanted was an apology or suspension, please stop reading.

4. Listen: If your concerns are not addressed to your satisfaction, start jotting down every company who advertises, locally and nationally, on the offending program. Holding a sign outside the station may get your group television coverage, but going after the advertising money is the crucial element. TV and radio stations are businesses first, and they need advertising money to operate. Solely boycotting the station always backfires, because it generates interest and interest translates into ratings. Boycotting the companies that advertise on the station is the most efficient way for your group’s message of discontent to be heard and acted upon (although there is a risk — one prominent Limbaugh advertiser, Carbonite, has seen its stock plunge dramatically since it announced it left Limbaugh’s show).

5. Contact sponsors: Once you know who’s advertising, the next step is to reach out to the person actually responsible for making the advertising decisions for each company. Inform the decision-makers of what happened and how your group has been handled, treating them like a future partner. Encourage them to reach out to the media entity and express their concerns. They may offer to remove their advertising from the show, but that means the station will reschedule their commercials, making its money during another program. Professional tip: Please remember to treat the advertisers with the greatest amount of respect, as they have done nothing wrong but marketed their businesses on the offensive show.

6. Contact media: Now that you’re organized and have given notice to the advertising businesses, it is the time to take your case to the public via the local media. News releases should be sent to every media entity stating the history of what happened and your group’s intentions. Ask for the public’s help with phone calls, emails, tweets and Facebook.

7. Take it national: If the above steps have not yet worked, taking the story national often will help.

8. Update: Here’s another crucial step: keeping the public notified of your success and momentum. Constantly update the public as to what businesses have pulled their advertising, etc. You may want to start a Twitter #Hashtag like #StopRush.

9. Warning — Do not fail: If you fail to get the show removed, you may have inadvertently crowned a new king. Nothing breeds ratings success like controversy and outrage. Rappers are often judged by how many bullets they have survived; the same goes for local media.

Limbaugh’s ratings will be through the roof if he survives this latest controversy, as people are tuning in to hear what he will say next. That’s why TV/radio personalities say such controversial things — to generate interest, which equals ratings. There is a fine line between what’s accepted and what’s not. The broadcaster who can toe the free speech line the longest will be the richest as well.

When you cross the line, as many feel Limbaugh did, you face what he’s facing now.

The liberal establishment

The 4th of July is to freedom what Christmas Day is to faith; a day set aside to recognize and appreciate something we should recognize and appreciate every day.

I am a patriot, and I refuse to let any ideological shadings dissuade me from that identity. I do not equate love of country with any political alliance; patriotism should transcend conservatism, liberalism and all points in between. That is not an espousal of blind faith. It is a commitment to the values of liberty and opportunity, which provide freedom of choice and freedom of voice.

As the editor of a newspaper that regularly receives invectives from left and right adherents (I was once confronted by a University of Toledo library official who described Toledo Free Press as a “right-wing rag,” just minutes before a UT communication professor told me he was disappointed that one of his former students was running a “liberal union mouthpiece paper”), I am sensitive to political perceptions and strive to offer a balanced opinion section. Any publication that publishes Don Burnard and Stacy Jurich on one side and Thomas Berry and Dock David Treece on the other should be able to claim it is offering the podium to a wide range of ideologies.

In an ongoing attempt to understand the evolution of our country’s political divide, I have been reading M. Stanton Evans’ book, “The Liberal Establishment,” which attempts to offer a “true idea of the direction in which our present rulers are taking the once-free society of the United States.”

In his introduction, Evans defines liberalism as “a belief in increased centralization of power in the federal government and in economic ‘planning’ aimed at the creation of a welfare state”; as a foreign affairs approach that problems can best be settled by reasoning with the agents of global conspiracy” and as a “moral relativism” in which the “highest virtue is ‘tolerance’ of anything and everything … there are no fixed standards of right and wrong.”

Evans describes conservatism as a “resistance movement” that struggles to overcome media and social bias: “It was assumed that Liberal ideas were the only ideas, and that suggestions to the contrary were beneath the trouble of refutation, were even, in some versions of the Liberal argument, a form of avarice or dementia.”

Evans outlines five elements of the “Liberal Establishment”: academics and colleges; “upper-brow magazines” such as The New Yorker; the book publishing industry; a “sizable segment of the clergy”; and the motion picture and television industry.

He is particularly critical of the president, writing, “He advances Liberal Establishment programs with agility and zeal; he is acclaimed and glorified by Liberal Establishment spokesmen.” He further describes the president as “a product of American politics at its most technical and antiseptic level, equipped with first-rate antennae for divining issues, assuaging interests and counting votes.”

Evans writes about his concerns that the country is drifting toward socialism and in part blames adherence to the economic theories of John Maynard Keynes.

“In its leading premise that government should control the economic activities of its citizens, Keynesian economics incorporates the central objective of the socialists,” Evans writes. “The avowed purpose of Keynesian fiscal and monetary manipulations is to transfer resources away from those who lend money to those who borrow it and earn it as wages … the goal is to ‘redistribute the wealth’ through the intricate workings of money and credit.”

Evans maintains that “federal aid” is a means to control Americans and make more of the country’s citizens and industries reliant upon the government. Not surprisingly, Evans is worried about the trillions of dollars in debt the country owes and the fact that the government is imposing a “per-family debt” on Americans. He maintains that constant spending causes deficits and inflation, as “the government pumps new money into the economy without a corresponding increase in productivity.” He discusses the dangers for Americans with devalued or disappearing pensions, which ties into a threat to such government aid programs as Social Security and Medicare. Social Security, he writes, is “On the edge of insolvency. There is no money in the ‘fund’; all Social Security revenues go into the general fund of the United States and are spent just like other tax money. Clearly, there is trouble ahead for Social Security.”

Evans saves some of his sharpest criticism for the news media and “managed news.” He accuses the president of employing a “carrot and stick” approach to controlling media. The carrot consists of exclusive scoops, special access and positive recognition. The stick is a denial of access.

It may not be remarkable that Evans’ thoughts are echoed daily on nearly every conservative talk radio program. What is notable is that every word of his “Liberal Establishment” philosophy was published in 1965.

I wanted to conclude that nearly 50 years after Evans wrote his book, the message hasn’t changed one iota; it’s the decline into anger and contempt that separated his era of rhetoric from ours. But then Evans concludes with a strikingly extreme statement: “Liberalism does not resemble socialism so much as it does that ‘revolution without a doctrine, ‘Nazism, and its Mediterranean in-law obsessed with the majesty of power for power’s sake … an excellent case can be made for the position that Liberalism is a genteel American version, not of socialism, but of fascism.”

That brings Evans’ work in line with our modern vitriol, making him less a prophet and more a progenitor of the Glenn Becks, Sean Hannitys and Rush Limbaughs of our time.

Michael S. Miller is editor in chief of Toledo Free Press and Toledo Free Press Star. Email him at mmiller@toledofreepress.com.